Paywall: quality feature or barrier to reach?

Yesterday’s Jour Fixe: “We were very pleased with Horizon’s contribution. It was even in the plus range”. Of course, we were very pleased with this feedback from our client UNICEPTA, but at the same time we noticed that many of our clients are not so enthusiastic about the contributions behind the online payment barrier.

“Why is this the case?” asks our colleague André Schmidt:

“Placing issues in the media requires relevance above all else. And after almost 30 years in PR, I know that in our industry, relevance is not always judged in the same way as it is by editors. If the editors are of the opinion that our topic in particular is not just “nice to have” for readers, but also “worth paying for”, that is a real sign of quality for me. And that makes me a little proud.

After our colleague André, Joschka Löchte has a more nuanced opinion on the subject:

“For me, paywalls are a double-edged sword. They are in a constant conflict between the financial security of quality journalism and the free availability of socially relevant information. On the one hand, they enable independent reporting by guaranteeing journalists’ funding. On the other hand, I would like to see paywalls removed more often for important topics, so that everyone – regardless of their personal financial situation – has access to the same information.

I am also ambivalent about paywalls in a professional context. On the one hand, it’s a sign of high journalistic quality and therefore a credible environment to put an article about a client behind a paywall – you wouldn’t do that if the article was of no interest to anyone. On the other hand, it’s a shame because the client can’t easily share the article on their own channels for everyone to click on, which limits the reach”.

How do you see it out there in our PR bubble? Is placement behind the paywall the gold nugget among the copper coins?